Why such flat helixes

[winter brew]

Helix diameter is a huge factor. Look at the old Polaris button helix vs a Team or A QRS or a Cat. All different diameters, so the angles (then throw in spring pressures) cannot be compared apples to apples as a bigger diameter helix/ roller position in relation to sheave diameter has more leverage.
And the new Doos run a straight 40 helix. 08 was a 42* then 09-11 was a 43/47 reverse angle, 12+ a straight 40 but also a much softer secondary spring.
The important thing is finding a "balance" in belt side force between the primary and secondary so they respond quickly and are not fighting one another, creating more heat than necessary.

 

[kiliki]

Kiliki, are you working on a Cat too? Sorry, I get it now. This was not a general thread on discussing clutching. More of a frustration thread while working on a PC. Just didn't get that from the OP.

Very very touchy subject and never intended to get into drive train redesign. Sorry for that.

Thanks again Geogofawkyourself.
your input to the topic was very knolageable to the thread.
I have had may a poo and you can keep that POS you call an 800.

 

[kiliki]

Helix diameter is a huge factor. Look at the old Polaris button helix vs a Team or A QRS or a Cat. All different diameters, so the angles (then throw in spring pressures) cannot be compared apples to apples as a bigger diameter helix/ roller position in relation to sheave diameter has more leverage.
And the new Doos run a straight 40 helix. 08 was a 42* then 09-11 was a 43/47 reverse angle, 12+ a straight 40 but also a much softer secondary spring.
The important thing is finding a "balance" in belt side force between the primary and secondary so they respond quickly and are not fighting one another, creating more heat than necessary.

just as you have listed i try to push the helix as high as i can this give more back shift and lighter primary with a faster rev. along with a higher primary spring make the recovery for the throttle better. the gears need not be too tall or the belt suffers, more so to keep the upshift in the mid 40+ mph without killing the belt pull after pull.

 

[PTE800]

I would have to say that there's still a lot left on the table when it comes to secondary design. I can't say I'm "up" on all the newer model setups but can say that I and 6 others are running Paragon secondaries with helix angles that vary from 60-55 to 56-51 on anything from a stock 800 Dragon to a turbo'ed Apex in the mountains. All are long tracks and have reverse. Belt life is not even a concern any more. The Apex has run the same belt for 2 yrs. and shows no sign of failure yet with 1500 miles.

 

[geo]

LOL, just going to ignore you Kiliki. Angry person aren't you. Understand. Had a PC and a floating jackshaft. Might even have more miles on one than you. They can work just no need for the effort IMO.

PTE 800. Always wanted to try a Paragon, just never had the money. Spent it all trying something else lol. Theory is sound just never got to touch one. Do they have notched helix's now for E-reverse?

Agree Brew. That balance thing (thought that's what I was sayin').

One example of a shallow helix that wasn't too bad was the ol' ACT set-up eh. Stock 36 degree and 140- 240 Team conversion. I think the ability to adjust the preload for your track and primary was a big thing in finding the balance. Often thought it would be a worthy addition to any compression clutch.
It definitely was an eye-opener and learning experience on how small adjustments in spring pressure made a difference. I played from 110-210 to 160-260 on the same day same hill with just a twist of the tool. Difference in belt heat and track speed was huge.
Even when it was set for me I would tweek a bit for dry cold snow or wet inversion snow.

 

[PTE800]

LOL, just going to ignore you Kiliki. Angry person aren't you. Understand. Had a PC and a floating jackshaft. Might even have more miles on one than you. They can work just no need for the effort IMO.

PTE 800. Always wanted to try a Paragon, just never had the money. Spent it all trying something else lol. Theory is sound just never got to touch one. Do they have notched helix's now for E-reverse?

Agree Brew. That balance thing (thought that's what I was sayin').

One example of a shallow helix that wasn't too bad was the ol' ACT set-up eh. Stock 36 degree and 140- 240 Team conversion. I think the ability to adjust the preload for your track and primary was a big thing in finding the balance. Often thought it would be a worthy addition to any compression clutch.
It definitely was an eye-opener and learning experience on how small adjustments in spring pressure made a difference. I played from 110-210 to 160-260 on the same day same hill with just a twist of the tool. Difference in belt heat and track speed was huge.
Even when it was set for me I would tweek a bit for dry cold snow or wet inversion snow.

The newer Paragons use a fully encapsulated roller design where as the older versions had a notched design.

 

[geo]

The newer Paragons use a fully encapsulated roller design where as the older versions had a notched design.

So what stops the upshift with E-reverse? Did they go to stiffer springs or something new.
Interesting. What's the site name or where are you guys buying?

 

[PTE800]

So what stops the upshift with E-reverse? Did they go to stiffer springs or something new.
Interesting. What's the site name or where are you guys buying?

The clutch has an inner reverse tube that rotates forward and backwards when reverse is needed. It's hard to explain but is ingenious in design.
The website is http://hitechperformance.net/index.html
or call Duane at (320) 693-9289

 

[geo]

Thanx

 

[Anylizer]

First i must apologize for the "misinformation" that I passed along here... Polaris is currently running a 42* helix... not a 36 as I stated earlier!

But, while I am riding a Cat, I am very happy with the way the clutching works! Even though it is no where near stock.
Yes, Cat has the flattest helix's of the 3, and somewhere in the mid 40's for the other 2.

Traction/track increases have always been dealt with by a gear change. So I'm not buying that as a reason for the flatter helixs. additionally the other 2 brands have increased track size and are running a lot steeper helix's,than Cat, so that doesn't make much sense either.

I fully understand trying to accomplish the balance between the primary/secondary which will create efficient clutching/belt life.

As for the "helix diameter"... the Team helix is substantially larger than the Doo, yet not a substantial difference in angle between the 2... so I'm not buying helix diameter concept either. Although it may have a slight effect, I don't see it as the defining factor.

 

[Anylizer]

You can try and blame the Cat clutch design all you want, but there is little difference from the QRS, and the guys installing a Team (to the best of my knowledge) are not running helix's in the 40's either. So I don't see it being a secondary design problem either.

 

[Anylizer]

So... I guess if it will make "Geo" happy... i will rephrase my original question.


Why is "CAT" running such flat helix's????




although, this was still intended to be a discussion. NOT BRAND BASHING!

 

[kiliki]

lets look at the poo just for an example, higher helix but about 8g less in the primary based of the stock set up. (say mid alt) let say 5k.)
so 42 helix and 62G weights
cat 36 helix and 70 grams
you can do the same thing with the cat if you chose but each motor and gear set respond differently and each motor produces torque better at different RPM.
less weight in the primary and a steeper helix= faster throttle response
more weight and a shallower helix=slower. same end result just two ways to get there. the shallower helix seems to not yo yo as much at the top load.

 

[Anylizer]

lets look at the poo just for an example, higher helix but about 8g less in the primary based of the stock set up. (say mid alt) let say 5k.)
so 42 helix and 62G weights
cat 36 helix and 70 grams
you can do the same thing with the cat if you chose but each motor and gear set respond differently and each motor produces torque better at different RPM.
less weight in the primary and a steeper helix= faster throttle response
more weight and a shallower helix=slower. same end result just two ways to get there. the shallower helix seems to not yo yo as much at the top load.

I agree, and understand the give and take of mass vs. angle.

But KK900 making similar HP, same mass & spring in the primary, runs a 55* helix... without belt problems. and shifts just fine.

additionally, Poo vs. Cat clutch calibration is apples and oranges, because Poo is missing 15HP... = less mass in the primary

 

[kiliki]

I agree, and understand the give and take of mass vs. angle.

But KK900 making similar HP, same mass & spring in the primary, runs a 55* helix... without belt problems. and shifts just fine.

I disagree, i was never able to keep a belt on a KK with the 55 always had to move down to the 51 on stock and 53 on a 1000bb. and still under long pulls the belt heat would add up after 3 or 4 pulls even with 20/46. one thing to think about is the chiv face angle i do believe they are different from the m's. i do have a m1k that can take pull after pull and never get past touching and pull a 40* on it.

 

[Anylizer]

I disagree, i was never able to keep a belt on a KK with the 55 always had to move down to the 51 on stock and 53 on a 1000bb. and still under long pulls the belt heat would add up after 3 or 4 pulls even with 20/46. one thing to think about is the chiv face angle i do believe they are different from the m's. i do have a m1k that can take pull after pull and never get past touching and pull a 40* on it.

... and that may be Kiliki... I was able to make it work. can't remember the exact setup, but still.... 53* or even 51* is miles from 38* and you made it work "with taller gearing" alot taller.

I personally think the gearing is the key! PC are geared way to low as a band aid. But what is the issue that requires the bandaid? &... flat helix

 

[geo]

Kiliki was correct in his comparison of balancing front to rear clutch. It can be done either way and works either way. I was talking about balancing helix to secondary spring and why helix angles have changed some. You have to know which spring is used too.
His memories of KK'sis closer to mine too. Around here I remember 49's, 47's, even 44's if you geared low.

Any. you keep comparing a 7500 rpm machine to a 8100 rpm machine and their HP. It's gonna confuse you if you don't separate this.

There definitely is a reason to think about helix diameter when comparing angles. Take the jackshaft as the transfer tool for torque feedback from the track. install a 4" diameter helix and the force applied from the shaft to the sheave is 2" from the center to the buttons-rollers. Put on a 5" diameter helix and now the force is applied 2.5" from the center.
Same input force, longer point to applied force and the laws of leverage say that that force will be different. Need to change helix angles to get to the force you need if it was correct at the closer point.

I don't know what others are running but I used a 55 and 57 helix with the Team on my PC. It was definitely an improvement to the stock '12 secondary which was poorly designed and flawed mechanically. I think that is why Cat has changed these a couple of times and gave them out for free if you whined enough.
The 12's came geared tall, but I geared down a bit to help the belt. Allowed me to run lighter weights and softer springs in an attempt to bring down the heat. Cat has gone much lower yet by quite a bit to save some heat on the belt. Why you ask lol.

My 2 cents and I got my PC to "just adequate" for temps but still ate the guts on my Team every 800 miles. You can't rubber mount a jackshaft at one end with a 10lb spinning mass shifting up and down on the same end. Creates unnecessary harmonics that I visually saw on my PC's jackshaft on a stand.
Seen a few snapped jackshafts since then. See some pretty heavy duty ones out there two. Don't really see this stuff available for other brands for some reason.

Cat's done a lot of small changes since I had one and to a point, they have been successful because, I think, exploding belts are a thing of the past. You seem to be trying to reverse what they have done to help their design without going back and reviewing history. Don't know if I would go in that direction but I'm sure there are improvements to be had.

That's it. I'm out. Enough bad memories. Sorry to interrupt what I thought was a general clutching thread.

 

[byeatts]

Kiliki was correct in his comparison of balancing front to rear clutch. It can be done either way and works either way. I was talking about balancing helix to secondary spring and why helix angles have changed some. You have to know which spring is used too.
His memories of KK'sis closer to mine too. Around here I remember 49's, 47's, even 44's if you geared low.

Any. you keep comparing a 7500 rpm machine to a 8100 rpm machine and their HP. It's gonna confuse you if you don't separate this.

There definitely is a reason to think about helix diameter when comparing angles. Take the jackshaft as the transfer tool for torque feedback from the track. install a 4" diameter helix and the force applied from the shaft to the sheave is 2" from the center to the buttons-rollers. Put on a 5" diameter helix and now the force is applied 2.5" from the center.
Same input force, longer point to applied force and the laws of leverage say that that force will be different. Need to change helix angles to get to the force you need if it was correct at the closer point.

I don't know what others are running but I used a 55 and 57 helix with the Team on my PC. It was definitely an improvement to the stock '12 secondary which was poorly designed and flawed mechanically. I think that is why Cat has changed these a couple of times and gave them out for free if you whined enough.
The 12's came geared tall, but I geared down a bit to help the belt. Allowed me to run lighter weights and softer springs in an attempt to bring down the heat. Cat has gone much lower yet by quite a bit to save some heat on the belt. Why you ask lol.

My 2 cents and I got my PC to "just adequate" for temps but still ate the guts on my Team every 800 miles. You can't rubber mount a jackshaft at one end with a 10lb spinning mass shifting up and down on the same end. Creates unnecessary harmonics that I visually saw on my PC's jackshaft on a stand.
Seen a few snapped jackshafts since then. See some pretty heavy duty ones out there two. Don't really see this stuff available for other brands for some reason.

Cat's done a lot of small changes since I had one and to a point, they have been successful because, I think, exploding belts are a thing of the past. You seem to be trying to reverse what they have done to help their design without going back and reviewing history. Don't know if I would go in that direction but I'm sure there are improvements to be had.

That's it. I'm out. Enough bad memories. Sorry to interrupt what I thought was a general clutching thread.

I also have great improvements with Tied with 70/57 and soft spring. on 880 Doo.

 

[boondocker97]

There definitely is a reason to think about helix diameter when comparing angles. Take the jackshaft as the transfer tool for torque feedback from the track. install a 4" diameter helix and the force applied from the shaft to the sheave is 2" from the center to the buttons-rollers. Put on a 5" diameter helix and now the force is applied 2.5" from the center.
Same input force, longer point to applied force and the laws of leverage say that that force will be different. Need to change helix angles to get to the force you need if it was correct at the closer point.

I agree with this completely. Torque = force X lever arm length. If you start with 4" and increase the diameter by even 1/2", the radius increased by 1/4". A 2.25" vs a 2" lever arm is a 12.5% change in leverage. An increase in helix diameter should give you more leveraging power from the clutch to the drive shaft. However, there are more factors to consider here. Holding all other factors constant, as the helix gets bigger, the leverage that the belt has over the roller/helix location decreases. Again you will need a shallower helix. If the secondary clutch diameter increases as well, then you will gain something (think the low end improvement from going from a 10" cat secondary to a 10.4" in the diamond drive days).

Another thing when looking at helix diameter is the distance traveled along the ramp by the roller. As the sheaves twist relative to each other (disregarding the Tied or Paragon designs), a larger diameter helix is going to have more roller travel than a smaller one. A shallower helix is needed on the larger diameter to have the same amount of clutch shift.

At a quick glance, this is what I can see looking at the KK spinning at 7600 RPM vs a newer 800 at 8100 RPM if they have the same gearing and same overall clutch diameters:
1. You have lost the torsional spring force building against the helix
2. Newer sleds seem to have a larger helix diameter
3. The lower RPM of the KK requires more shift out of the secondary to get the same jack shaft/track speed.
All of these things point to needing a shallower helix on the newer sled.

To truly compare things apples to apples across all brands you would need to have quite a bit of information to compare.

 

[TRS]

O.K. let me try and clear up some of the "Mud" lol.

While I am "somewhat" directing this at the "Cat" clutching (my current challenge), It is still a general brand discussion. Even a '15 Pro using a (IMO, POS) Team clutch is running a 36* helix.
In my (op) I misstated the XP initial helix angle, I said 36*.... it was 42*. (which is inline with yesteryear, even torsional) But they are now running much steeper angles.(47*) and it works!!!
I do realize that some of this is related to the difference between torsional vs. compression. I can agree that encapsulated rollers would have better input, and the reverse notch effects this(somewhat). But... even when converting to a torsional set-up, only a slight increase in angle will work. So it cant be totally a compression/torsional
Here is what is see.... Lighter sleds, more HP, supposedly better belts(doubtful), and taller/longer tracks.
Track... simple gear change should resolve any issue there, but not a drop from 2.2:1 to 2.6:1 This is causing us to waist the lower 2/3 of the clutch (most efficient, more squeeze) and running a lot in the upper 1/3 (least efficient, less squeeze) Gearing this low, seems to me, causes a lot of "YoYo" in the clutching = belt heat. (lots of rapid upshift/backshift)... and never loading the engine.
HP... more power should easily deal with more aggressive clutching. ie... steeper helixs, aggressive ramp profiles etc. especially with the stupid 2.6:1 gearing.
Lighter chassis... LESS LOAD.

yet the clutching has... IMO gone soft! IMO it is the mfg's band-aid. Htey are too busy cranking out the next failure to spend time on good clutching. sort of a close is good enough approach.


Please understand... I'm not being argumentative. But if there is evidence against the stated opinions... I am going to point out what I see/believe.

I'm not agreeing with your philosophy. I'm in geo's camp here.